Abdullah Iskandar, Al-Hayat
After the resignation of the Shiite ministers, something that may be held against the current Lebanese government is that it is now non-charter. Not that anyone has questioned its constitutionality; as long it enjoys the confidence of the majority of Parliament, and as long as the House and the President of the Republic retain their mandate. And the fact that the government has become non-charter due to the resignation of ministers of one sect and political creed is, moreover, a precedent that might be repeated in the future with other sects, regardless of their size and importance. This is bearing in mind that recognized sects are often only represented by one minister, and are sometimes not represented at all. A charter means equality, not the right to veto.
When Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah was explaining the reasons for the resignation of the Shiite representatives from Fouad Siniora's government, he stressed that their presence was no longer meaningful because any disagreement would be put to the vote, with results contrary to their convictions. He thus considers disagreements and division in this government to be the rule, and not government solidarity that is led by the spirit of the charter. Therefore, it is not hard to imagine that he will try, through dialogue and consultation, to make votes inside the government the rule, and not an exception, as it is now. In this way, he would retain the power to veto decisions. The rest is clear: confronting the majority with one of two options; either they grant him this power, and, with it, running the risk of making a precedent, or holding early elections, which would overturn the equation of majority-minority. Consequently, Nasrallah would take full control of the government's decision-making.
|